In this extended interview with Insomniac Games founder Ted Price, go even further into his thoughts and involvement regarding tomorrow's landmark Supreme Court case, in which Arnold Schwarzenegger's bill to restrict video games like porn is at issue.

Under this law Mario could technically be illegal to sell to children- Mario takes hallucinogenic mushrooms to power up- Mario kills animals on a regular basis- Mario can die in various ways- Mario does this all to win the kiss of a womenHow could someone at all say that video game violence at all could cause real life violence. Mario is not only one of the most family friendly but also one of the most well known. But using this logic, you could say that children would start killing turtles and eating mushrooms simply because they play it in a video game. The vagueness just allows for personal opinions and personal sense of morals to bias any type of rating system.

I'm all for opposing this particular law on principle, but I find Sessler and Co.'s slippery-slope, doom-and-gloom arguments to be little more than disingenuous hyperbole. What's missing is for Sessler and his ilk to actually argue why selling certain games to minors is a good thing, rather than trying to persuade people that a bar to selling certain games to minors would kill the industry--particularly when major retailers already check ID's for M-rated game sales. I don't see how this California law would have much of an impact on anything. And Sessler's "The sky is falling!!!" perspective is far from persuasive.

I would honestly think the U.S Government is a bit too late for this kind of problem. For example: So many minors have already bought the game Grand Theft Auto IV. But say the game is still selling today. If the gaming industry loses, Minors wont be able to buy the game ( Possibly meaning the majority of them ) which might mean GTA IV sales would go down the hole and back around again.

Agreeing with Black_Rose2010, I also played M rated games when i was young. Mortal Kombat was so fun to play back then. We can't let that change. Some of the younger kids out there now might enjoy that game like i did, Long ago. But if this fails, that will never stay a reality. We can't let that happen!

Don t California pollutions have something better to do than mess with our right to play a video game! (They should go balance the state budget, or legalize POT) Look I have 3 kids and I m a parent! People need to take reasonability for what their own kids are playing. Don t drop your jaw and say what are you playing? OMG! F YOU! Do some mother F ing research before you buy your kid the game! Know what your kid is doing! Be a real parent and get involved in your kids up bringing! I for one don t want the government telling me what to watch, play, or do! Less government more parenting.

The long term plan is to usurp the rights of parents to hold custody of their own children thus making the government the real and legal guardian of your children while you, the parents, are nothing more than caretakers.

As you can see, that is such a stupid plan it will never work. However, by losing fights like this in the courts it means blood must be shed in the future and tragedy will happen and I personally would like to keep things cival and peaceful.

This is a lot like taking the concept of sweeping dirt under a rug and trying to apply it to a brushfire. Sadly, it ends in disaster. If you need help putting out the soon to erupt blaze, you know where I live.

Thank You Ted Price, I certainly hope I can meet you in person one day. I myself want to become a fellow game creator like you, once i'm done with college. I glad someone in the industry is taking a practical logical approach to the matter and, I'm pretty sure that us as gamers and creators alike hope that this violation of our 1st Amendment Rights, is stopped dead in its tracks. On the part of your interview regarding games artistic merit, I had recently presented a speech regarding and defending video game as a valid art form, and I everyone in the room, some of which didn't play or like games finally understood why we defend it so, hopefully the Supreme Court will understand this as well and make sure to point out this violation of our First Amendment.

Now while the government does have the right idea to limit mature games to younger children, they shouldn't punish the ones who are allowed to play them. But like others saying, its the parents responsibility to limit what games they can play.

When I was 3, I played Mortal Kombat a lot, it was the year the ESRB was put up. It didn't shake anything, it didn't affect gaming purchases or anything. But of course, now parents are more concerned and they should, but like it is said, the parents are the ones who are responsible on what their children play. But don't punish us for the parents' mistakes.

Ultimately, I think that the biggest threat is that many retailers won't want to risk selling one of the "overly violent" games and getting fined and it will trickle back to the developers. Sure, stores still sell tobacco and alcohol, even though they could be fined, but those are clearly defined. It either is tobacco or it isn't, but then these "inappropriate" games are based on what? Someone's opinion that I may or may not share. I just hope that the supreme court sees this for what it is, an attack on free speech. Sure, the little ones shouldn't be playing certain games, but we also shouldn't have a law that inhibits the ability to make them. Politicians get worked up because games use the player's interaction, but so what? It's still just entertainment.

Thanks for posting such informative coverage of this case. I am actually studying game design currently and have been following as much as possible, and this whole case is rather terrifying. Looking forward to the coverage tomorrow as well.

I'm really hoping that the creativity and content of the games I love is not hampered by bad parenting. My parents taught me right from wrong early in my life, and because of it I was never negatively influenced by something as meaningless a shooing a hooker in a videogame.

Dude if the parents are with the child...they cant do shiz...if the kid asks for the game...and the parent or legal guide sais its ok and has a "real" idea...then they HAVE to sell it to them...and even if they did get the game no one gives a shiz...and it does nothing...the game is fun and no one can stop that...this law is BS thanks a lot Hilldog if you had not have opened your fat mouth...i could go to the mid-night release for black ops on mon. by myself and by it by myself...im still going but when i go to buy the game i have to have my dad with me. Chill down guys.

It's like blaming the gun store if you as a parent bought a gun and didn't lock it up properly, then your kid shot his or hers sibling. It's stupid.

It's so much easier to point fingers than to admit that you're the one that's at fault.

By the way, why don't books have age ratings then? There's tons of books with content not suitable for younger people. Or are there some idiots out there that think that only grahpical violence can influence people and not words? Really?Words are way more dangerous and influential, if anyone should know this it's politicians. Influencing people with words is ancient.